Obamas nomination of Sotomayor

[ccbatson]

Is that the same as "I am rubber, and you are glue...etc"?

[Lorax]

Is that the same as "I am rubber, and you are glue...etc"?

More like:

Oil & Water
Sand & Sandals
Jack Lemmon & Walter Matthau
Superman & Kryptonite [[I'd be Superman in this scenario)

[rb336]

Along with Sotomayor and all of the other victims.

You really need to get a grip on the definition of the word Fascist that you keep throwing around...you haven't a clue as to what it means.

considering that we have shown you to be 100% wrong on that definition, that is incredibly funny

[ccbatson]

You have? When? Where? Which thread? Which posts? By what standard?

These are the basic requirments for making a case for your position Rb.

[Detroitej72]

You have? When? Where? Which thread? Which posts? By what standard?

These are the basic requirments for making a case for your position Rb.

There is really no point in showing you the proof, as like in the past, you just ignore it.

But thats OK, I enjoy sparing with you, it can be fun and sometimes educational, as you force me to back up my claims and that enables me to better articulate my arguments.

[Lorax]

The only thing Batts does for me is give me acid reflux.

[rb336]

You have? When? Where? Which thread? Which posts? By what standard?

These are the basic requirments for making a case for your position Rb.

um, bats, everyone here remembers those. if you like, go to the old site and look in any of the dozens of threads where you mention the term. and when, exactly, using your own standards, have you ever posted a single support of any comment you have ever made that wasn't nearly immediately contradicted by actual facts?

[bailey]

I think it's pretty telling that Hannity, Beck and Bats are relying up one line...really one word in a speech from 2001 to trump up the outrage, yet they ignore 3000 opinions over a almost 20 year judicial record. A record, that even the wall street journal, calls "within the democratic mainstream". One in which she upheld precedent...unless there wasnt one. Ruled relatively conservatively. Deferred to elected officials instead of changing laws by judicial fiat. And is broadly regarded as exceedingly qualified jurist.

I know the birthers want to be outraged at anything Obama does, but the constant caterwauling and teeth gnashing simply results in less and less influence. But by all means, keep at it. The adults are in charge now.

[jiminnm]

The majority of commentaries I've read from law professors and lawyers closer to the matter than I indicate that there is no profound legal analysis in Sotomayor's written case opinions and little to distinguish her from other possible candidates [[and, perhaps, more moderate than some expect). I think we should looking for the best legal minds to be on the Supreme Court instead of looking for someone to "represent" a certain group on the Supreme Court or give the impression that certain seats belong to certain groups. Even Joe Biden, our illustrious VP, once said that Clarence Thomas only got on the Court because he was black. It may well be that Sotomayor will get on the Court because she is Hispanic and female.

Personally, I disagree with her statements that minority women will reach better legal decisions than white males [[which she has made a number of times). If she really believes that, then she may lack the ability to decide cases on their legal merits and substitute some other determinant than the law to reach her opinion.

All that said, there are consequences to winning and losing Presidential elections. One of the consequences of winning is getting to nominate Supreme Court justices. Unfortunately, the nomination process has become just another opportunity for political battle.

[firstandten]

The majority of commentaries I've read from law professors and lawyers closer to the matter than I indicate that there is no profound legal analysis in Sotomayor's written case opinions and little to distinguish her from other possible candidates [[and, perhaps, more moderate than some expect). I think we should looking for the best legal minds to be on the Supreme Court instead of looking for someone to "represent" a certain group on the Supreme Court or give the impression that certain seats belong to certain groups. Even Joe Biden, our illustrious VP, once said that Clarence Thomas only got on the Court because he was black. It may well be that Sotomayor will get on the Court because she is Hispanic and female..

I think the same case could be made for some of the other Supreme court judges before they got on. VP Biden is right Clarence Thomas only got on because he was black, but more importantly he was the only black reliable conservative vote Bush senior felt comfortable with. That doesn't even make him the most qualified black. The whole process is so politicized that qualified is only part of the entire criteria used to select supreme court judges. Sotomayor is been on the SCOTUS track for years with republican appointments and votes for lower federal courts, why now is her qualifications coming up for questions?

Personally, I disagree with her statements that minority women will reach better legal decisions than white males [[which she has made a number of times). If she really believes that, then she may lack the ability to decide cases on their legal merits and substitute some other determinant than the law to reach her opinion...

Please read this entire thread. That quote should be taken in context and I along with other posters address that .

All that said, there are consequences to winning and losing Presidential elections. One of the consequences of winning is getting to nominate Supreme Court justices. Unfortunately, the nomination process has become just another opportunity for political battle.

You are right, however if you are a narrow minded political idealogue like the Bushes, you don't ever want them getting many opportunities to appoint supreme court judges.

[jiminnm]

I think the same case could be made for some of the other Supreme court judges before they got on. VP Biden is right Clarence Thomas only got on because he was black, but more importantly he was the only black reliable conservative vote Bush senior felt comfortable with. That doesn't even make him the most qualified black. The whole process is so politicized that qualified is only part of the entire criteria used to select supreme court judges. Sotomayor is been on the SCOTUS track for years with republican appointments and votes for lower federal courts, why now is her qualifications coming up for questions?

I expect that the fact of Thomas' conservatism was for the social conservatives in the Republican Party, especially after Robert Bork was denied a few years earlier. Bush 1 appointed many others judges that dissatisfied leading Republicans. Being conservative, however, does not make one a lesser qualified candidate. Under the standards that now seem to exist, Thomas was clearly qualified.

Sotomayor was initially appointed to Fed District Ct by Bush 1, but Clinton appointed her to the Fed Appellate Court and she was approved by the Senate 67-29. The talk at that time was that the Democrats [[not Republicans) were fast tracking her to the SupCt.

Please read this entire thread. That quote should be taken in context and I along with other posters address that.

I don't need to read that in this thread, I read her speeches and writings in which she made the statements.

You are right, however if you are a narrow minded political idealogue like the Bushes, you don't ever want them getting many opportunities to appoint supreme court judges.

Bush 2 is far more conservative than Bush 1. If you look at the judicial appointments that Bush 1 made, there are very few "reliable" conservatives among them [[start with the man Sotomayor is nominated to replace). Also, no one should be surprised when a President nominates judges consistent with his/her legal philosophies. The two justices nominated by Bush 2 are conservative, but clearly qualified to be there.

[bailey]

The two justices nominated by Bush 2 are conservative, but clearly qualified to be there

...don't forget Harriet Miers. CLEARLY she was the most qualified. she was just railroaded by the liberals.

I guess I'm having trouble with the premise or assumption that Sotomayor ISNT qualified. Princeton and Yale...20 years on the Federal Bench...associate professor...etc etc. who is the mystery candidate that was "passed over" here? Why is she NOT qualified?

[firstandten]

I expect that the fact of Thomas' conservatism was for the social conservatives in the Republican Party, especially after Robert Bork was denied a few years earlier. Bush 1 appointed many others judges that dissatisfied leading Republicans. Being conservative, however, does not make one a lesser qualified candidate. Under the standards that now seem to exist, Thomas was clearly qualified..

Qualification was never the issue, I make an assumption that anyone the POTUS appoints is qualified at some level. I mean you don't have to even be a judge to be on the supreme court. I dislike Thomas political beliefs but I never said he wasn't qualified.

The same statement you make " Being conservative, however, does not make one a lesser qualified candidate." you can make by inserting liberal. It depends on what you consider as being qualified

don't need to read that in this thread, I read her speeches and writings in which she made the statements..

Then you miss the point of that discussion. The interpetation of the constitution is not static. It does depend on the life experiences [[which many times is based on gender and race) and the times in which those judges live in. The ability to decide cases on there legal merits and her being female or hispanic or living in the 21st century are not mutually exclusive.

If that weren't the case then you wouldn't have Plessy v Ferguson and then 100 years later Brown v Board of Education

Bush 2 is far more conservative than Bush 1. If you look at the judicial appointments that Bush 1 made, there are very few "reliable" conservatives among them [[start with the man Sotomayor is nominated to replace). Also, no one should be surprised when a President nominates judges consistent with his/her legal philosophies. The two justices nominated by Bush 2 are conservative, but clearly qualified to be there.

Again I don't argue that point but don't think for a monent these conservative supreme court judges make decisions independent of there life experiences and/ or political leanings.

So all in all whats the difference? And why is Sotomayor not qualified ? I know you didn't come right out and say it but I maintain your points were heading in that direction.

[Islandman]

There is a lot of resentment towards Puerto Ricans, as many think they are "better" than other hispanics due to their automatic U.S. citizenship.

As a Puerto Rican for all of my life, this is complete BS. Never once have I heard or felt anything of the sort, and don't know any of my family or acquiaintances that feel this way.

Do you have anything to back this up? Or did you mean to say there is resentment among other Hispanic groups? That would make more sense.

[sarge]

I'm a former spanish linguist who served with a lot of hispanics from all over the place and I've never heard of anyone resenting PR's for thinking they are better then others. Nor have I ever heard of anyone complaining PR's THOUGHT they were better than others. I knew a Spanish priest who was assigned to Nueva Jork who used to yell about the PR's he had to deal with back in the day because that made up much of his church. I also remember a lot of the subgroups not being so fond of the other subgroups, i.e. Mexican v. Cuban v. PR v. Central America v. South America, but I don't recall PR's being any more or less favored. [[or disliked!)

[ccbatson]

Rb...you felt so guilty about squirming out of the challenge to substantiate your comment that you did, not once, but twice? Does that help you somehow? It doesn't make your original case any stronger, that is for sure.

[rb336]

Rb...you felt so guilty about squirming out of the challenge to substantiate your comment that you did, not once, but twice? Does that help you somehow? It doesn't make your original case any stronger, that is for sure.

why should i bother? i have before, you are simply too lazy to go to the old forum and look it up

oh and bats, i responded in 1 post, 107 in this thread. showing your math skills again?

[ccbatson]

Oops, mistook you for DetroiteJ72 Rb...You only tried squirm your way out of the debate once, as you just pointed out...I stand corrected.

[vetalalumni]

The interpetation of the constitution is not static. It does depend on the life experiences [[which many times is based on gender and race) and the times in which those judges live in. [The ability to decide cases on there legal merits] and [her being female or hispanic or living in the 21st century] are not mutually exclusive.

If that weren't the case then you wouldn't have Plessy v Ferguson and then 100 years later Brown v Board of Education

Continuing the original thread topic, the above quote is a simple, good argument and very defensible. In the context given in the argument, mutual exclusivity elements would be inappropriate set exclusionary factors such as entitlement [[era) or supremacist [[gender or race) theories [[by virtue of being absent from the "The ability to decide cases on there legal merits" set). Elementary set theory.

[ccbatson]

We all have life experiences which we consider rich. It is arrogant and racist to believe that one racial/ethnic group is superior to another.

[rb336]

Oops, mistook you for DetroiteJ72 Rb...You only tried squirm your way out of the debate once, as you just pointed out...I stand corrected.

didn't squirm away from anything, already won this handily many moons ago. if you care to relive your past failures, go right on ahead. I see no need to do so

[ccbatson]

You pointed out your response in #107. This takes the form of a tacit admission of the premise that you were squirming.

Sort of like saying "no, I didn't steal 2 widgets, just the one, see [[in 107)?"

[rb336]

you're goofy today, aren't you?

[ccbatson]

Well, yes, I am having a bit of silly fun with this one. I am surprised you noticed.

[bailey]

Well, of course, now we see what all the histrionics were really all about......

Nearly a month after President Barack Obama picked her for the Supreme Court, Republican senators say Sonia Sotomayor isn’t serving as the political lightning rod some in their party had hoped she would be.
“She doesn’t have the punch out there in terms of fundraising and recruiting, I think — at least so far,” said Sen. John Thune [[R-S.D.), who most likely will be elected as the No. 4 Republican in Senate leadership this week.
The calculus could certainly change when Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings begin July 13. But the Republican senators’ initial review of Sotomayor’s record, together with the meetings they’ve had with her, have left them doubting that she’ll be controversial enough to help them or hurt the Democrats heading into the 2010 elections.-Politico.com

Speaking of Senator Thune...why is it he is taking over as the #4 in the senate? Oh yeah, Sen Ensign had a little problem protecting the sanctity of his own marriage. I wonder if Sen. Ensign will do what he demanded Sen Craig and President Clinton do when their dalliances were revealed?